I'm in the same boat man. I've been using Steam Family for 10 years with my brother. I opt in to the beta and it breaks. Can't even opt out...
In my 25 years of playing cs and 21 years of Steam this is by far the worst patch roll out they did. By this statement I even include a sudden patch update they did on CS 1.6 after at least 10 years of no patches where they didn't include a patch log. Very disappointed and I hope they find a solution for people who do not abuse the system.. eg. ID verification or similar.

It's so the big mainstream devs can get their money. It's all about money. Also has been, always will be.

For Example: If you allow Johnny Bravo across the street to borrow one of your games and he beats it. He now has no reason to buy said game. Therefore, taking money out of greedy pockets.

Originally posted by MDK419:

Therefore, taking money out of greedy pockets.

Yes, how DARE those game developers who spend years on a game project want to get PAID for someone playing through their entire game?
Pure greed i tell you!


The entitlement of some people is really astounding.

Originally posted by Ogami:

Originally posted by MDK419:

Therefore, taking money out of greedy pockets.

Yes, how DARE those game developers who spend years on a game project want to get PAID for someone playing through their entire game?
Pure greed i tell you!
The entitlement of some people is really astounding.

That's one way of seeing it. Alternatively, the ability to share games has been a given on consoles for 40 years and the family sharing features are meant to emulate that on Steam. That shared copy has been paid for so who's asking for an additional sum that they wouldn't have gotten on any other platform? Don't you think the fact that there's no used market on PC is already enough of a benefit for developers?

Not only entitlement works both ways, where someone may draw the line is incredibly subjective. It's not so much entitlement as a lack of incentives for the consumer.

Taking a practical example: as a developer myself, I prefer my customers to have the ability to legitimately share my games rather than having to deal with more piracy due to the loss of convenience. I can tell you that a lot of developers, mainly indies, are not happy with the changes that Valve is currently testing and participation to the sharing program is optional anyway, so the pencil pushers at AAA corporations don't even care , they can simply opt-out altogether. We indies do not have that luxury: we NEED the game to be shared as widely as possible, being paid is a privilege that comes with exposure. In the words of Marcin Iwinski, founder of CDProjekt and DRM-free advocate: You can't force people to buy games, only convince them to do so.

In the end, it's the same issue than with piracy - it's a service problem: There's no arguing that Steam is already providing the best, most widely available service around at a suitable price so if that doesn't already convince the customers to buy a copy of the game they're sharing for themselves, then nothing will convince them and especially not additional restrictions. If someone isn't willing or able to buy the game, they aren't a potential customer in the first place. Valve has already shown that adding restrictions won't turn these people into buyers, so there’s no actual lost sale.

Originally posted by Ogami:

Originally posted by MDK419:

Therefore, taking money out of greedy pockets.

Yes, how DARE those game developers who spend years on a game project want to get PAID for someone playing through their entire game?
Pure greed i tell you!


The entitlement of some people is really astounding.

I bought the game. Therefore, I'm free to do with it as I see fit. Best believe I'm entitled to it. This is why they have gone digital. They're greedy control freaks who come home after 3 bumps of coke and a Valium to beat on their wife & kids. Because little Timmy didn't want to hop up & down on daddys lap with his pants down.

You people are whats wrong with gaming. Not only supporting greed like this, you support clear money grabs like DLCs. Then proceed to wine about yet another game that was hot garbage on release. Meanwhile, I'm heavily switching to Indie who don't forget to add that main ingredient called LOVE into their games.

Here's an ideal, maybe start putting that love back into your games instead of greed and maybe... just maybe... Johnny Bravo across the street who just got done beating your game... will go out and buy your game.

Oh wait, that's right... you're greedy control freaks.

"I'm not making $70 off Johnny Bravo across the street (WAAAAAAAAAAAAAH) and he didn't find my game fun so he beat it once and never thought about it again (WAAAAAAAAAAAAH)."

Pirating games are gonna start to become very common because of this and when it does... I'm going to lmao.

Originally posted by lukaself:

Originally posted by Ogami:

Yes, how DARE those game developers who spend years on a game project want to get PAID for someone playing through their entire game?
Pure greed i tell you!
The entitlement of some people is really astounding.

That's one way of seeing it. Alternatively, the ability to share games has been a given on consoles for 40 years and the family sharing features are meant to emulate that on Steam. That shared copy has been paid for so who's asking for an additional sum that they wouldn't have gotten on any other platform? Don't you think the fact that there's no used market on PC is already enough of a benefit for developers?

Not only entitlement works both ways, where someone may draw the line is incredibly subjective. It's not so much entitlement as a lack of incentives for the consumer.

Taking a practical example: as a developer myself, I prefer my customers to have the ability to legitimately share my games rather than having to deal with more piracy due to the loss of convenience. I can tell you that a lot of developers, mainly indies, are not happy with the changes that Valve is currently testing and participation to the sharing program is optional anyway, so the pencil pushers at AAA corporations don't even care , they can simply opt-out altogether. We indies do not have that luxury: we NEED the game to be shared as widely as possible, being paid is a privilege that comes with exposure. In the words of Marcin Iwinski, founder of CDProjekt and DRM-free advocate: You can't force people to buy games, only convince them to do so.

In the end, it's the same issue than with piracy - it's a service problem: There's no arguing that Steam is already providing the best, most widely available service around at a suitable price so if that doesn't already convince the customers to buy a copy of the game they're sharing for themselves, then nothing will convince them and especially not additional restrictions. If someone isn't willing or able to buy the game, they aren't a potential customer in the first place. Valve has already shown that adding restrictions won't turn these people into buyers, so there’s no actual lost sale. :clickbutton:

And the fact you people want to compare & label someone who spent $70 on a game that wasn't even worth $30 greedy, to the greed of a million dollar company says everything about your age. I would much rather have 3 shelves of physical copy's of games, that I can do wtf I want with, instead of a forced game site with a library full of games that can get hacked when ever, never to be seen again.

I'm still mad over the fact I had to download Steam just to play Empire Total War when it first came out. And you want to call me the entitled one? Yeah, that's not how that's going to work. There's a reason why I have old game consoles in my house instead of new ones. Going all the way back to Super Nintendo. Which from the sounds of it, is older than you and probably more expensive too. That thing is going on 30 and it still plays games very very well. You're not going to get that out of a PS5 that was built to break over time so you're forced to buy a new one. BeCaUSe thEy cAn''''t MakE MOre MONey iF IT WAs BUilT To LaST.

HELLO!!! GREED!!!

Originally posted by MDK419:

And the fact you people want to compare & label someone who spent $70 on a game that wasn't even worth $30 greedy,

Lay off the steroids, pal, slow down a bit and read again what I posted. I clearly stated that I prefer my customers to have the ability to share however they want because the alternative for them is going back to piracy.

I'm specifically against the concept of planned obsolescence, which is illegal in my country to begin with and I'm an admin for one of the largest consumer advocacy group here on Steam. Surely you're going against the wrong target, here.

Originally posted by MDK419:

I bought the game. Therefore, I'm free to do with it as I see fit.

No, you bought a user license for that game that is only valid for YOU and noone else.
This was already the case with games in the 80s if you read the TOS that came with them.
You never were allowed to give the game to others, it was only meant for yourself.
The only difference is that nowadays because gaming is nearly purely digital this can be enforced, something that was not possible with physical games on catridge or discs.

But you never were "free to do with it as i see fit".
Go and look at the terms of service for some of those old games you bought.

Originally posted by Ogami:

Originally posted by MDK419:

I bought the game. Therefore, I'm free to do with it as I see fit.

No, you bought a user license for that game that is only valid for YOU and noone else.
This was already the case with games in the 80s if you read the TOS that came with them.
You never were allowed to give the game to others, it was only meant for yourself.
The only difference is that nowadays because gaming is nearly purely digital this can be enforced, something that was not possible with physical games on catridge or discs.

But you never were "free to do with it as i see fit".
Go and look at the terms of service for some of those old games you bought.

That's entirely incorrect. I understand where you're coming from, but it's important to consider that just because something is written in the terms of service doesn't automatically make it lawful or enforceable in every jurisdiction. There's also the possibility that you misunderstood the context in which it applies.

In many countries, including the US, there’s a principle similar to the "first sale doctrine," which clearly states that once a sale is concluded, the seller's rights over that item end. This has historically allowed physical items like cartridges and CDs to be freely resold, which is why stores dedicated to selling used video games have thrived for decades. You're engaging in revisionism by drawing an imaginary legal landscape where those stores couldn't have existed.

Moreover, in Europe, the ownership of digital software is treated similarly to physical goods, with the first sale doctrine applying to digital content as well. The phrase "licensed not sold" often leads to confusion and is commonly misunderstood. It doesn't mean you don't own the product: It’s comparable to owning a book—you own the physical book and can resell it, but you don’t own the text within it to reproduce as your own. Similarly, what’s protected is the code of the game, not the copy of the game itself.

In fact, some European countries have even enacted specific laws to ensure that video games can’t be uniquely exempted from this principle. The idea that games are "licensed not sold" primarily arises in the U.S., where the legal landscape is different. It's a narrative that’s been reinforced over the years, but it's not universally applicable.

For reference, Gamestop has long been interested in the ability for users to transfer licences for money and even Xbox director Albert Penello mentioned that "support for trading, loaning, and reselling of digital Xbox games" is something that has been under careful consideration for Microsoft. They even went as far as claiming that "[it] will come sometime down the road".

Originally posted by Ogami:

Originally posted by MDK419:

I bought the game. Therefore, I'm free to do with it as I see fit.

No, you bought a user license for that game that is only valid for YOU and noone else.
This was already the case with games in the 80s if you read the TOS that came with them.
You never were allowed to give the game to others, it was only meant for yourself.
The only difference is that nowadays because gaming is nearly purely digital this can be enforced, something that was not possible with physical games on catridge or discs.

But you never were "free to do with it as i see fit".
Go and look at the terms of service for some of those old games you bought.

My John Hancock isn't on anything game related. I don't remember signing a contract. If I want to lend my game out to a friend so he doesn't have to waste money on a game he may or may not like. There's nothing anyone can do about it.

Originally posted by lukaself:

Originally posted by MDK419:

And the fact you people want to compare & label someone who spent $70 on a game that wasn't even worth $30 greedy,

Lay off the steroids, pal, slow down a bit and read again what I posted. I clearly stated that I prefer my customers to have the ability to share however they want because the alternative for them is going back to piracy.

I'm specifically against the concept of planned obsolescence, which is illegal in my country to begin with and I'm an admin for one of the largest consumer advocacy group here on Steam. Surely you're going against the wrong target, here. :clickbutton:

Originally posted by lukaself:

Originally posted by Ogami:

No, you bought a user license for that game that is only valid for YOU and noone else.
This was already the case with games in the 80s if you read the TOS that came with them.
You never were allowed to give the game to others, it was only meant for yourself.
The only difference is that nowadays because gaming is nearly purely digital this can be enforced, something that was not possible with physical games on catridge or discs.

But you never were "free to do with it as i see fit".
Go and look at the terms of service for some of those old games you bought.

That's entirely incorrect. I understand where you're coming from, but it's important to consider that just because something is written in the terms of service doesn't automatically make it lawful or enforceable in every jurisdiction. There's also the possibility that you misunderstood the context in which it applies.

In many countries, including the US, there’s a principle similar to the "first sale doctrine," which clearly states that once a sale is concluded, the seller's rights over that item end. This has historically allowed physical items like cartridges and CDs to be freely resold, which is why stores dedicated to selling used video games have thrived for decades. You're engaging in revisionism by drawing an imaginary legal landscape where those stores couldn't have existed.

Moreover, in Europe, the ownership of digital software is treated similarly to physical goods, with the first sale doctrine applying to digital content as well. The phrase "licensed not sold" often leads to confusion and is commonly misunderstood. It doesn't mean you don't own the product: It’s comparable to owning a book—you own the physical book and can resell it, but you don’t own the text within it to reproduce as your own. Similarly, what’s protected is the code of the game, not the copy of the game itself.

In fact, some European countries have even enacted specific laws to ensure that video games can’t be uniquely exempted from this principle. The idea that games are "licensed not sold" primarily arises in the U.S., where the legal landscape is different. It's a narrative that’s been reinforced over the years, but it's not universally applicable.

For reference, Gamestop has long been interested in the ability for users to transfer licences for money and even Xbox director Albert Penello mentioned that "support for trading, loaning, and reselling of digital Xbox games" is something that has been under careful consideration for Microsoft. They even went as far as claiming that "[it] will come sometime down the road". :clickbutton:

My sincere apologies, good sir!

Originally posted by MDK419:

My sincere apologies, good sir!